About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 15
CSPAN 12
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
and reconstruction in afghanistan. the great majority of which has been channeled through private contractors. we know from experience in bosnia in the 1990's and more recently in iraq that a reduction in troop levels as not mean a drop in contractor activity. in some cases, it is a matter of increase. there has been increase reliance on contractors to fulfill the logistical roles once performed by the military in those instances. eventually, the contractor presence will also decrease as we move support of large-scale off-budget scanned it -- spending to more direct to the afghan government directly. this is why our reconstruction strategy must focus on insuring that afghans can sustain what we have helped build. how many additional schools and health, as we can construct, but also that there are teachers and health care officials to sustain those institutions. whether afghans have the resources and expertise to manage the long-term operation and maintenance of power plants. on a related note, as we encourage more contracting with local afghan firms under the afghan first policy, we must consider
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
away from capitol hill, the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question on their minds saturday, even as bombings rocked the city around them, was the top u.s. military officer couldn't answer. will we get paid? these are soldiers in afghanistan with the bombs bursting around them. here's what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, and i quote, "i honestly don't know the answer to that question." admiral mike mcmullin responded, statement telling them to work each day to defend this country. wearing the uniform, listening to bombs go off around them. that is why today what is referred to in the press as real people. i guess we're not. we have students like laura and sidney. we have veterans like bill and roger and carlos and ariana who is a senior. guerm who is a senior. felicia is a senior. alyssa is a senior. they are here representing the millions of people around this country who are as frayed of the soldiers on the frontline in afghanistan. we don't have more delaying tactics? we need to get to the business of hand. we have
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
trillion. the ryan budget contained a $1 trillion in savings winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. majority leader kantor acknowledged the ryan budget counted toward deficit reduction. drawing down the troops would save more than $1 trillion over 10 years. we have given them everything they asked for. $2.70 trillion, dollar for dollar, there is no revenue. [unintelligible] in my caucus, somebody had an ipad and they read it today. the rating agencies are very nervous. there was a congressional hearing today. i do not have that, but the person testifying today said the one thing the markets demand is starting tond debate this thing again in a few weeks is not a certainty. [unintelligible] excellent question. we tried our best to have a trigger with some of the stuff that president obama worked on with republicans. they worked on the trigger. they could never get there because it would be so unfair if the committee did not arrive at a positive conclusion that the trigger would be all costs. that is really unfair. we cannot get from here to there after having already put to put $7 tr
down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requires the passage of a balanced budget const
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
of the american people. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and was asked by a number of soldiers whether they were going to get their checks next week. how can you allow them to wonder whether they are going to get paid? >> we will be able to come to an agreement. >> if we could have had this with a bipartisan agreement? >> it could have been finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the leaders to move the underlying bill through the house yesterday. all the president had to do was say yes and it would have moved quickly through both the house and the senate. we wasted a week that we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this and the president has to decide how we will get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with a reasonable and as possible people that want this crisis to end as quickly as possible. >> let me add, the country is not going to default for the first time in history. that is not going to happen. we have a level of seriousness with the
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
a bloomberg story. the cost of the war in iraq and afghanistan. it this far outpaces anything. just the war costs in the tax cuts alone, what day account for are the debt. the way you get out of this debt is to pile all of this burden on middle income families and senior citizens. they're the most vulnerable. it is just plain wrong. this is outrageous. ..will close with this bi the house of riverses appears to be here. president obama has put a lot on the table. he put some that makes me very uncomfortable. he has gone the extra mile by any objective analysis. we're close to this deadline. these are something that does not recommend a conference bridge a compromise. it was right off a cliff ticket we should not be doing this. we should be finding ways to come together. let's move on. i regret that we are here. we do not even know what the you're going to bring to the floor. i've never experienced a thing like this before. i regret that we are here. i thank you very much for being here. i wish your counterpart were here. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. how many hearings has this bill r
is in afghanistan, visiting the troops. the question they are asking, will they be paid if this default happens? let me put this plainly. if senator reid's plan passes as they pay down their domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops, the military will break. we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the massive entitlement programs that are actually bankrupting the country. that stops here. the budget passed last night shrinks the government and, most importantly, holt's three years of neglect to our armed forces. thank you. now i would like to ask the gentleman from arizona -- i mean virginia, i do not know how that happened, the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i think that this is an important issue. over the last several weeks we have heard a lot about the word compromise. i think that the american people realize that overlaid on that are two other words. we need to make sure that we are having common sense on whatever compromise that we have. we do not understand why it is the democratic administration constantly believes we need to compromise our national s
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
have had their fill of catastrophe and near catastrophe. recently in afghanistan, admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs, was asked by troops if they'll be paid next month. his answer was, "i honestly can't answer that question." admiral mullen had to tell the troops, "i'd like to give you a better answer than that right now. i just honestly don't know." mr. president, it is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by driving our country over the cliff of default. our nation's economic life is in peril. i don't remember ever in the 32 years that i've been here is our nation more in need of deliberation, statesmanship and compromise. "the new york times" columnist david brooks, who is a conservative columnist, recently wrote that too many republicans seem to have joined a movement -- his word -- in which -- quote -- "the members do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter what the terms." close quote. i hope that some of our republican colleagues will prove mr. brooks wrong on this matter because of its huge significance. the time for ignoring hard tru
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
is in afghanistan. he was asked by soldiers whether they will get their checks next week. how can you allow these soldiers to wonder whether they will be paid? >> the senator and i are both confident that we are going to be able to come to some agreement with the white house and and this impasse -- and end this impasse. >> [inaudible] with a bipartisan agreement next door? >> we could have had this finished early this week. there is a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that we moved to the house yesterday. all the president had to do was say yes. that bill would have moved quickly through the house and senate. we have wasted a week that we did not need to waste. we have been driven into this cul-de-sac and it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with reasonable, responsible people who want to this crisis to end as quickly as possible. i am confident we will. >> let me just add, you know, our country is not going to default for the
is in afghanistan. he was asked whether they are going to get their checks next week. >> i think we are beth confident we'll be able to come to some agreement with the white house in this impasse. heading the way of the vote. by this time, we could have had this bipartisan agreement nextdoor. we could have had this bill flippished early between next week. there was an agreement between myself and leaders to be moved through the house. for the president, all he had to do was say yes. that bill would have moved quickly through the house and senate. we wasted a week we didn't need to waste. we've driven through the cul-de-sac and it is time for the president to decide howle handle it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with reasonable and responsibly people that want this crisis to end as quickly as possible. i'm confident it will. let me add, our country is not going to default for the first time in history, that is not going to happen we now have a level of seriousness with the right people at the table that we needed and thought we had last weekend.
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
be directly affected by a government default. paychecks for soldiers, in afghanistan and iraq and at bases around the world conceivably wouldn't go out. f.a.a. towers could shut down. border crossings could close. operations at the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. would be put at risk. safety inspections of the food that we eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. and the resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt even harder to tackle because each 1% rise in interest rates alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on our national debt each year. perhaps, most importantly, hard-working american families would also feel the crunch. a spike in interest rates would effectively force a tax on all americans and american businesses due to increased consumer costs. just as important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up credit markets because the u.s. would no longer be seen as a reliable credit risk. coincidentally, mr. president, yesterday an important consumer protection law which senator lugar and i introduced and passed and you helped us
of iraq and afghanistan. today we just voted h.r. 2650 to, in fact, establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. what a shame. what a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, the house finally passed a real plan that addresses this nation's spending crisis. i think many american families know that washington has a spending problem because they have been living within their means. they have wen been trying to figure out to do what what they've got. and we passed a plan that actually would cut, cap and balance and controls spending in washington. and what's the president's plan? we have still yet to hear his plan. we hear speeches and class warfare where the president puts one part of america against the other. if he confiscated every dollar, it wouldn't address the problem. it's time to get real. if the president wants to get serious about addressing the spending problems, it's time to confront what cut, cap and balance does and tell washingt
of questions. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and he was asked whether soldiers will get their checks next week. how can you allow the soldiers to even wonder whether they will get paid? >> senator mcconnell and higher months -- both confident that we can come to an agreement with the white house and in this impasse. -- end this impasse. >> we could have had this bill finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that will be in moving to the house yesterday. the president, all he had to do was say yes and that milk -- that bill would have move quickly through both the house and senate. so we have wasted a week we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this call the second it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, i think we are dealing with a reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible and i am confident that we will. >>
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
-- the senate plan's $1 trillion in savings from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)